In a statement about the Church’s teaching on marriage in his book An Introduction to Catholic Social Teaching, Rodger Charles, SJ, writes:
“This teaching runs completely counter to our culture, but we must remind ourselves that it has never been the Christian way to look first to what the world says.”
Unlike his Jesuit brother Fr. Charles, with his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia or The Joy of Love , Pope Francis seems to have forsaken the Christian way, to look to what the world says first.
The exhortation is long – 325 paragraphs and 261 pages including the index. And much of it is monotonous.
Too much of the document consists of simplistic advice, sometimes self-help and other times pastoral counseling, like that you might find in a pamphlet published by a governmental agency or from a pop psychologist or sociologist. (See paragraphs 131-141 and Chapter Seven, for example.)
Do we really need a pope to state in an exhortation, as he does in paragraph 266, for example, that some throughout the world have not been trained to say “please,” “thank you,” and “sorry”?
If the document had remained on this simplistic and banal level, or even if he merely reiterated his leftist political positions, as he in fact does here when touching on the environment and economics, the exhortation easily could be ignored and relegated to the trash bin.
Yet while the exhortation doesn’t unequivocally state support for irregular unions and marriages or communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, it does seem to undermine Church teaching on marriage.
On the one hand, what the Church teaches is stated clearly:
“Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church, is fully realized in the union between a man and a woman who give themselves to each other in a free, faithful and exclusive love, who belong to each other until death and are open to the transmission of life, and are consecrated by the sacrament, which grants them the grace to become a domestic church and a leaven of new life for society.” (Paragraph 292)
On the other, Francis says prior to this that to consider marriage as a mirror of the Church’s union with Christ places a burden on the faithful and in doing so misrepresents what Pope John Paul II writes in paragraph 9 about conversion in Familiaris Consortio:
“We should not however confuse different levels: there is no need to lay upon two limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly the union existing between Christ and his Church, for marriage as a sign entails ‘a dynamic process…, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God.’” (Paragraph 122)
Essentially, traditional marriage for Francis is an ideal, merely an ideal, that most people cannot attain. And while the Church will continue to promote the ideal, because few can attain the Church’s ideal marriage what are thought of as irregular unions and marriages, Francis believes, should in practice be legitimized.
What truly seems to be at issue with this document is the Church’s definition of sin and essentially repentance. In Francis’s opinion, those in irregular unions or marriages can in no way be thought to be in a state of mortal sin:
“For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain ‘irregular’ situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” (Paragraph 301, italics added)
While he does not specifically say that the divorced and civilly remarried can receive communion, he at the same time removes sin from the equation. If a person in an irregular situation is not in a state of mortal sin, nothing then would prevent that person from receiving Holy Communion.
He is clear at one point that same-sex marriage cannot be equated with marriage (paragraph 251), but he also seems to establish with this view a path to the legitimization of same-sex unions as well as unions of cohabiting couples. For Francis, some of these relationships can be stepping stones to the acceptance of Church teaching. (Paragraph 294)
As expected, the document leaves much to the process of discernment and the guidance of pastors in this process. But it also leaves much as well to the individual conscience, which seems free to determine whether an act is sinful for not, which seems opposed completely to what Pope Benedict XVI has written of concerning conscience.
Nowhere does Francis speak of the importance of repentance. Instead, only “the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it.” (Paragraph 300)
He attempts to suggest that this will not lead to multiple standards, one for each individual:
“When a responsible and tactful person, who does not presume to put his or her own desires ahead of the common good of the Church, meets with a pastor capable of acknowledging the seriousness of the matter before him, there can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a double standard.” (Paragraph 300)
But he has already undermined this position with his understanding of conscience. And he further undermines those who believe true mercy results from holding men and women accountable to the traditional teaching of the Church:
“ … a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, ‘sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families’.” (Paragraph 305)
The exhortation is sure to open up a floodgate of commentary from those who see it as a great advancement in the Church’s thinking to those who see it as stepping up to the line of heresy or even crossing it.
Others will have to make the assessment about whether Francis has forsaken Church teaching. At the very least, however, it seems to me that Francis clearly is taking his cues from secularists and the world and not from Church tradition, as he painfully attempts to claim.
And I do believe that at the very least he has opened the path to a new understanding of unions and marriage in the Church, and new practices, that cannot be justified either through Scripture or Tradition.
Finally, I feel that we have entered a period of great crisis in the Church, one very similiar to that confronted by St. Athanasius.
I now await the arrival of a champion of the Church, a new Athanasius, who can lead us back to the path.
Good article, a lot to think about.
Thanks. Yes, there is much to think about here.
I say this article is not good at all. I will pick on one point (since there are many to choose from that go off).
The “Deacon” writes “What truly seems to be at issue with this document is the Church’s definition of sin and essentially repentance. In Francis’s opinion, those in irregular unions or marriages can in no way be thought to be in a state of mortal sin:
But what you quoted of Francis didn’t say that?
Quote” For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain ‘irregular’ situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” (Paragraph 301,)end quote
I am sorry but logically this can only be understood to mean irregular situations with certain mitigating circumstances can’t always be seen as a state of mortal sin via the body of Church teachings. This does not logically imply all irregular situation are not states of mortal sin. Only those with mitigating factors. Logic 101.
Why would you treat Our Spiritual Father with such disrespect?
Shameful.
Read the article again more carefully. You may also want to take the time to read the exhortation in its entirety.
Sorry but I am too much of a scholastic to be moved by weak arguments that begin with the words “you might want to read more carefully” since I might throw that back at you Deacon. I need specific rebuttals to what I said.
Here is an antidote too your “good” article.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/04/defenses-of-pope-francis-amoris-laetitia.html
Христос воскрес
Khrystos voskres
This mistake is a whopper and not the fun kind you eat a Burger King.
>He is clear at one point that same-sex marriage cannot be equated with marriage (paragraph 251), but he also seems to establish with this view a path to the legitimization of same-sex unions as well as unions of cohabiting couples. For Francis, some of these relationships can be stepping stones to the acceptance of Church teaching. (Paragraph 294)
This is a vile slander! Are you an Eastern Rite Catholic Deacon or an anti-Catholic schismatic eastern “Orthodox” partisan and follower of Fr Serpham Rose? Anybody who reads English (& I surmise the Pope letter in a translation in their own language) can see homosexuality & same sex so called marriage are NOT mentioned anywhere in paragraphs 293 to 295 and what is discussed is civil marriage and cohabitation between opposite sex couples with an aim to bring them in line with the Church’s view of marriage.
That is clearly stated in paragraph 294 “Whatever the case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel.”.
Deacon one word for you. “Repent”!
I agree Ben, shameful indeed! This “Deacon” needs an appointment with the Vicar of Christ…needs his ears pinned back a bit so he can hear with his heart the true message of the overall sterling and illuminating gem of wisdom and joy!
Clearly, here’s someone who didn’t read the exhortation and is more interested in supporting a comrade’s sophomoric thoughts than in truth.
Who’s to say what the mitigating factors are? You could get tied up in knots over that but I suspect that is what Francis is hoping for.
It isn’t what is there that is troubling, it is what is missing. NO discussion of Luke 16:17-18 at all. Guess who is the Pharasee from this omission.
I disagree on your first point. What is there is troubling. I agree, however, on your second. What is missing indeed is troubling.
I don’t typically post comments to sites…but would like to express a few thoughts. First, admittedly Christian marriage as it is beautifully designed, is challenging – shortcomings and failures (at least for me) are too frequent. But life is not easy – and nothing is possible without God’s grace and mercy, and thankfully He provides the Sacrament of Penance for healing and forgiveness and the grace to repent and persevere. He does not leave us mired in sin if we choose to “die to ourselves,” accept and pursue the beauty of His Truth. I dare say, the Catholic moral life is not meant to be easy, and I would implore all Church leaders to hold the standard high – please do not lower it because you are fearful of burdening us. Our Lord has given His own life for us – truly we deserve nothing…but He offers us everything… To call us to anything less than the fullness of the Truth would seem to be an affront to all of the Martyrs who gave their lives defending the Faith. Also it has been my understanding of Church teaching that one who is divorced (and not remarried) provided they are in a state of grace as each communicant is to be, can certainly receive Christ in Holy Communion. Lastly, in response to a previous commenter, it is not easy to go against the tide of public opinion and offer a potentially unpopular interpretation. To shame someone for speaking his opinion and expressing his concerns seems odd and to go against the very mercy and compassion you are calling for… I am so grateful for Church leaders in my community who challenge us to the high calling of the gospel and also lead the way…
Thank you, Annie! Well said.
love of joy; this direction from Pope Francis is a huge break from the past negativity of the Catholic church teaching on marriage, co- habitation and second relationships from broken marriages; his definition of mortal sin in such cases is all new thinking and a welcome break from most of the current restrictive teaching on irregular relationships and second relationships. It will take the old school of Cardinals and bishops decades to accept all this as their negative attitudes to change probably is an easier option for them rather than trying to relate to the real world where we all have to live and survive as best we can. I think too of Catholic countries like the Philippines etc where the majority of young women are unmarried mothers of children, that more consideration must be given by the church to help them cope with the heavy burden of forbidding Church law; a little understanding and kindness helps and to date church inflexibility have stopped many young adult Catholics from practising a faith they may consider impossible , unreal and without love.
Briam, I think you make a good point here about the document, Deal
Great analysis yet I wonder, is it that the Holy Father is thinking on a level which we can’t yet perceive?
Another absurd error in this article. The Deacon claims that Francis believes that to “consider marriage as a mirror of the Church’s union with Christ places a burden on the faithful.” Did you even read the previous paragraph where Francis is quoting one of his own Wednesday catecheses:
“when a man and a woman celebrate the sacrament of marriage, God is, as it were, ‘mirrored’ in them; he impresses in them his own features and the indelible character of his love. Marriage is the icon of God’s love for us. Indeed, God is also communion: the three Persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit live eternally in perfect unity. And this is precisely the mystery of marriage: God makes of the two spouses one single existence. ” This has concrete daily consequences, because the spouses, “in virtue of the sacrament, are invested with a true and proper mission, so that, starting with the simple ordinary things of life they can make visible the love with which Christ loves his Church and continues to give his life for her.” (2 April 2014)
What Pope Francis means when he says “there is no need to lay upon two limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly the union existing between Christ and his Church,” (note that “perfectly”), he means that we are imperfect people and can always stand improvement, through gradual conversion and growth in the Spirit, which is exactly what JPII was trying to convey.
Deacon, your words, as others have already pointed out, betray a serious lack of ability at reading comprehension. The problem isn’t that your critics haven’t read the encyclical. It’s that you read, but don’t understand what you read.
Thank you Lori for your insight. This is not about being “sophomoric” but about the Truth & the Deacon has not given us the truth about the Holy Father’s teaching here. I have found across the internet what can only be described as grieving disappointment in the Holy Father’s letter. This disappointment is from the left and the reactionary pseudo-Catholic right in that the Pope did not change doctrine on marriage and did not formally revoke Pope St John Paul II’s teaching and discipline on invalid marriages & taking the Eucharist. The left is upset because the mythology they have crafted around the Holy Father as this great liberal reformer has not manifested itself and the disappointment from the reactionary pseudo-right is in having egg on their faces that their prognostications of doom have not come to pass. Having been humiliated in this way by the Holy Spirit fulfilling Christ’s promise in Matt 16:18 they have turned to reading into AL heresies that are simply not evident in the text but based on what they pretend to discern are the Holy Father’s true motives behind his words. A simple Catholic mentality would be to take the whole of Apostolic Tradition, Scripture & Church teaching and read AL threw that lens and interpret it accordingly in harmony with the faith. But I do not see this being done by people like the Deacon and his anti-Francis Partisans. I see what can only be described as a Protestant private interpretation mentality. Reading error into Church documents. The Protestants do that with Holy Writ to support their false doctrines formulated during the so called Reformation. The anti-Francis Partisans do so to slander, undermine & discredit the Holy Father without thought how this hurts the faith. I find the whole enterprise vulgar and disloyal. Which is not good in this evil times.
Христос воскрес
Khrystos voskres
Christ is risen!
You are right, Lori. Francis contradicts himself.
Where did Lori say that dear?